Suchergebnisse

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Illustrations -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- 1. Well Beyond Market Failure -- 2. The First Market Environment -- 3. "Essential" Markets, Public Health, and Private Learning -- 4. Demand and Democracy -- 5. The Second Market Environment -- 6. Demand as Necessary but Not Sufficient -- 7. The Third Market Environment -- 8. Health Technologies in Comparative Global Perspective -- 9. Markets and Metropolis -- Notes -- Index

AbstractEvolutionary political economy (EPE) deals with populations and economic change over time but has not been systematised beyond European industrial history. The world's largest democracy India, despite challenges from COVID-19, is now the fastest growing and 5th largest economy in the world, transitioning into a distinct period of industrial deepening, with export expansion in engineering products and services, huge outlays on airports, highways and rail systems, new domestic defence initiatives to boost indigenous R&D, yet retains a global diplomatic stance as a responsible nation–state from vaccine sharing to Asian security. This commentary explores the Indian case to argue that EPE's combinatorial approach to technological capabilities and industrial development can be considerably strengthened from the study of non-European cases.

AbstractIndustrialising economies today are characterised by a multi-level heterogeneity of customs, norms, guidelines, standards, regulations and other laws that provide the broad scaffolding and the technical context for industrial activity. This institutional variety (IV) leads to combinatorial challenges about which institutions are mixed and matched as technologies and sectors evolve. Gaps in evolutionary political economy and evolutionary institutional methods should explain when variety is 'better' for industrial development. Two health industry cases, oxygen production and Ayurveda, have come into the pandemic spotlight under high demand and high uncertainty, by patients, state, firms, experts and other stakeholders. Both cases reflect markedly different types of institutional variety with implications for manufacturing and services. A debate of sustainable industrial policies (SIPs) thus requires attention to institutional variety (IV) and a future agenda on healthcare.

AbstractEconomics depends heavily on assumptions made about the phenomenon of institutional variety and its implications for technological capabilities in economic development. This article contributes to new ways of thinking of institutional variety in order to advance scientific argument within the broad tradition of evolutionary political economy (EPE). First, it draws on theNyāya(Hindu) systems of logic and reasoning about inference and judgement which can potentially reveal inter-and intra-paradigmatic differences for EPE and economics. Second, it uses four brief illustrative cases from the author's development research on technological learning and innovation to argue for more explicit and systematic treatment of inference and judgement about institutional variety. Implications for the future of economics are briefly discussed.

How do universities become economic development institutions? The normative "Third Role" in Europe refers to universities taking on explicit economic development mandates such as greater technology transfer, and commercial outputs, without providing much of a compass for institutional change. We argue that universities transform themselves into economic institutions against a changing canvas of national welfare by a process of "task-oriented institutionalisation" which involves both individual action and university strategy. We investigate two universities´interactions with firms in Turku, Finland´s biotechnology concentration. Using universities as a lens, we find notable gaps in frameworks on how economic institutions emerge and conclude with five hypotheses for future studies on universities, institutions and economic development.